MySwag.org The Off-road Camper Trailer Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: GraemeL on March 19, 2014, 03:12:22 PM
-
My daughter, who is mentally handicapped was attacked by two dogs when she knocked on a front door.
Now let me say this first up, Chantelle did not provoke the dogs or owner in anyway, she was simply standing there waiting for the client to come out.
My ex wife is a full time carer and was picking up her client. My daughter went and knocked on the front door to let the client know they were there to pick them up, while the ex waited in the car.
The owner came to the door and allowed their two pit bull mix dogs to come out as well. The dogs immediately attacked my daughter, biting her on the legs, she screamed as the one of the dogs bit through her shoe and sunk its teeth into her foot, while the other was trying to bite other parts of her. She managed to climb onto a chair to try and get away but it didn't really help.
The ex wife said her vision was blocked by a large fence but heard Chantelle screaming out in pain. By the time she got to her two other people had pulled the dogs off.
Chantelle was taken to hospital and treated, thankfully the injuries were not severe and the main injury was a rather nasty bite to the foot.
The owner, who was there at the time, just stood by and did absolutely nothing to help my daughter or pull the dogs of her. They simply stood there and watched the the dogs attack and bite Chantelle.
The Ex called the ranger and they attended, BUT they told her that because the attack took place on PRIVATE property and that is where the dogs normally reside they are only going to issue an infringement.
I spoke to them and told them that it is a croc of crap and asked where in the Dog Act it states anything about private property.
The pathway leading up to any front door is legally considered Public Access.
I told them that I want the matter heard by a magistrate, but they refuse to prosecute the owner. I mentioned the fact that the owner has a legal obligation under not only the Dog Act but any other laws pertaining to visitors safety welfare. I also explained that they deliberately stood by and just watched on as my daughter was being attacked and did not attempt to stop it or render any assistance to my daughter. Even after the attack, they didn't even offer an apology.
The ranger still tells me that the owner will receive an infringement for the attack and another for unregistered dogs and that is the end of it.
I will not rest until the owner is dealt with properly and intend to write to the CEO and if no joy, our local member.
I wonder what would have been the outcome had the dogs got her around the throat. I also wonder what the outcome would be if it was a rangers child.
-
Go around there with a chainsaw, or a few Rumpsteaks loaded with fish hooks.
You could just call Current Affair. They would be onto this like stink on ****.
My bet is the ranger is mates with the dude and doesn't want to fine him
-
Geez mate, what an horrendous experience for your daughter. Main thing is she is not severely hurt or worse.
Swannie
-
I hope your daughter is ok.
-
Sorry mate to hear your young girl was attacked. I hope she makes a full recovery soon.
-
Mate that's really sad to hear about this. I hope your daughter makes a full recovery and doesn't go through the rest of her life scarred by this event. All the best to your family.
-
Really sorry to hear and wishing your daughter all the best and a quick recovery.
Hope karma bites this guy on the backside!!
-
Thanks everyone, we are lucky it isn't more serious.
I have had dogs for most of my life and I understand that sometimes things happen that are completely out of character for the dog. Although you do your best to make sure these things don't happen, sometimes it just does, for what ever reason.
It if was a case of the dogs getting out ahead of the owner and just scaring her or lightly nipping her and the owner did what most of us would, act immediately to stop it going further, I would not have had a problem with that.
It's the fact that they just stood there and watched even though my daughter was screaming out in pain while the two dogs were biting into her. I really cannot understand how anyone could do that?
I informed the ranger that I intend to fight them all the way and that I will not rest until it is heard by a magistrate. I am not after any form of payment or compensation.
I want it to go to court and have a magistrate determine the appropriate fines/punishment, once he has all the facts. It makes no difference what the court orders, at least I know that everything that could be done, has been done.
-
Graeme
Where are you located? PM me. If you are in Melbourne I might be able to help.
Wayne
-
have you obtained legal advice from a solicitor? You may have to take your own action. You say the owner is a client, do you mean he may have a disability? Kevin
-
Heres hoping the young one can recover well from this and not just the physical injuries, All the best to you guys ..
-
Hi Graeme
As you may recall I managed a Local Government Regulatory Services unit for a fair while.
How much is the infringement notice?
A few things and don't shoot the messenger here.
The decision as to whether or not to prosecute is one for the team leader of the unit based upon the circumstances.
Invariably the two sides of the story will differ and the TL needs to work out what will happen in court if it gets there. Straight away I can see a number of defences and issues that would make it a worry to send it to court just on what has been written. Apologies if I get some of it confused. If it goes to court most people would get representation so some of this is what you would expect the defence to raise;
1. If your ex was there in a work capacity then it is a workplace safety issue. They would raise the fact that they were not expecting a 'child' to attend but an adult. Had they known a child was coming they would have secured the dogs.
2. If it is a workplace the 'tacit consent' to enter the property is no longer there as the reason your ex was there was for work. She has brought her daughter into the workplace and then not supervised her whilst she was there.
3. It sounds like the only witness on your side will be your daughter? Would you want her to go to court and be cross examined? It sounds like there would be two adult witnesses against your daughter. I guarantee you they would collude and make a story up that would make them look good and your ex look bad.
4. The attack is not a 'serious' one according to the definition under most of the DCA's around the country. To be serious it generally needs to be a tearing laceration or one requiring stitches. Could be different where you come from. If it is not a 'serious' attack as defined under the act then the magistrate will treat it as an attack inside their home (I kind of got the idea that your daughter must have been inside to jump on a chair?) with a non serious injury and unless they have been in trouble for a similar offence in the past probably give them a 556a proved no conviction or proved and a small fine.
My experience with this is that generally the infringement is more than any fine the magistrate gives. Here is an example - we fined a bloke over $6000 for removing protected trees on his property. He went to court, found guilty and fined $800. If the fine is over $560.00 I would be pretty confident that will be more than they would get in court.
I see that Fuji has sent you a PM. Hopefully he can help out but if you need more send me one and I will give you my number.
Apologies if the above sounds heartless it is reality (at least how I have seen it).
Best of luck.
Daz
-
Please once again do not shoot the messanger, but Daz is right in the sence that if part of your Ex wifes documented job description is to pick up and or drop off clients then the houses she goes to technically become and extension of her workplace so herself or the company she works for need to provide a safe system of work to manage this.
In your case a visitor (your daughter) has entered the workplace (your ex wifes scope of work) and has tragically sustained an incident, so there is a lack of supervision argument there
Now the way around this may be for example if your Ex wife or the company your Ex wife works for sends instructions to clients for picking up and dropping off e.g a letter mentioning that the environment in general must be safe, no dogs, carer will not enter clients home etc. In this case there is some onus on the clinet (owner of the dogs) as they have agreed to a work system that would apply to your Ex wife and by extension a visitor (your daughter)
Speak to your Ex and if
1. she is expected to pick up and drop clients off and this is documented
2. There is some process or procedure in place for attending clients houses even if dogs are not mentioned specifically
If the above are in existance i would then speak to a workplace laywer for further advice
Please take this as general summation only
In the end it is a terrible incident that i personally cannot comprehend as coming from a farming background if one of the dogs did an unprovoked attack on another person it would be the long ride to the back paddock without hesitation
-
Tragic situation. Pit bull owner, enough said.
-
Shocking situation. Owners fault as simple as that.
-
Shocking situation. Owners fault as simple as that.
Tragic situation. Pit bull owner, enough said.
Yes, agree, tragic, but yours are both simplistic replies that don't aid the issue or help people learn. Why was child there? Had the same arrangement been in place prior? Were dogs usually there?
Time for all to step back and think before posting.
-
OK I've stepped back and had a think. It's not the breed, it's the owner, what a load or garbage. The origin of the pit bull is for blood sports therefore the breed is genetically predisposed to fighting. It serves no purpose in modern society and should not be allowed to be bred or kept as a pet.
-
Yes, agree, tragic, but yours are both simplistic replies that don't aid the issue or help people learn. Why was child there?
Time for all to step back and think before posting.
The owner should have known better. The poor little girl has every right to knock on a door without feeling she's at risk of being attacked by dogs. I have a little staffy and if she ever attacked a child for no apparent reason i would put her down myself if the council didn't. Let's get things straight here. She didn't enter the house and invade their territory, and just say she did the owner should have been smart enough to isolate them.
-
without being rude ... how can you be sure it was a pit bull ?.... quite over the whole pit-bull crap and i have never owned one , just the generalization by the misinformed
i have been bitten by 2 dogs in my life , a blue cattle and a maltese ,
hope you daughter has a full recovery
Tragic situation. Pit bull owner, enough said.
-
Graeme
Where are you located? PM me. If you are in Melbourne I might be able to help.
Wayne
Thanks but I am in WA.
Dazzler and Chester, thank you both.
I understand what you are saying and they are very valid points and certainly something to not only take on board, but also to dig deeper in order to get the facts straight.
Especially the part about my daughter going to court. In the heat of the moment, I hadn't really thought about that. It is something I will have to talk over with Chantelle and the ex. I will also have to discuss the fact that she was there in a work capacity and find out where her employer stands in all of this.
The client does not live at the house, they are not normally there, I am not sure what happened but according to my EX, the client was not supposed to be there. She was warned by my ex's employer (after the attack), that if she went there again, the police would be called. I don't know why or what the concern is regarding the house owner. The ex wasn't aware of the above until after the attack. I am only receiving information via my ex, whom I trust, she is not one to let emotions get in the way of facts.
The chair was at the front of the house on the outside.
I live in Perth and my daughter lives in Kalgoorlie. I have spoken to the senior ranger for my shire and explained everything to him, including the fact the ex was there to pick up a client, he said that if it happened here, there would be no doubt, it would be a prosecution. He also said that he is unable to give me legal advice, which I understand. But he went on to explain other similar situations, one was where a person went to a home to measure up for some blinds and was attacked inside the house, the result was prosecution.
Another where a postie knocked on the front door and was attacked, but no broken skin, again another prosecution.
He told me not to let them issue the infringement and to fight to have it sent to court.
I am formulating a letter to the CEO of the Shire in question, I will wait for their response and in the meantime I will need to discuss the possibilities with my ex and Chantelle.
This is from the Dog Act 1976 Section 33D
If a dog attacks or chases any person or animal and physical injury is caused to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.
Penalty:
(a) for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $20 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $1 000;
(b) for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000.
(2A) If a dog attacks or chases any person or animal without causing physical injury to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.
Penalty:
(a) for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $500;
(b) for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $3 000.
Thanks again to everyone for your kind words.
-
I think they mean pit bull 'type' dog.
There are very very few American Pit Bull Terriers in Oz.
And as you allude to ,I think, is all dogs bite. Bloomin fox terrier crosses were the bitiest in our area.
>:D
Hope your daughter is well Graeme.
-
Bd,D4D, Yep, agreed with all you have said.
I would do the same with my dog. Bullet!
However, unless pre planned I wouldn't send a child for a pick up.
Sorry, but IMO both of your replies over simplified the topic after two extremely valid replies from Dazzler and Chester.
Get well soon Chantelle.
-
how can you be sure it was a pit bull?
The owner came to the door and allowed their two pit bull mix dogs to come out as well.
-
you are correct dazzler
i have had large guard type dogs all my life
if one was to bite a child , i would put it down in minutes myself
on saying that , if you enter my property through a gate that has a sign on it warning of private property and guard dogs are present
I think they mean pit bull 'type' dog.
There are very very few American Pit Bull Terriers in Oz.
And as you allude to ,I think, is all dogs bite. Bloomin fox terrier crosses were the bitiest in our area.
>:D
Hope your daughter is well Graeme.
-
The dogs in question are pit bull mix.
I don't blame the dogs, we don't know how these dogs are treated.
I blame the owner, as far as I am concerned, they have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control at all times and if they attack someone for what ever reason, they wear the consequences.
I agree with others, if my dog attacked someone, it would be put down without question. I would also be prepared to face what ever legal action was leveled at me because of it.
As I said earlier, I cannot for the life of me, understand how anyone could stand there and watch their dogs attacking someone and not raise a finger to help.
I just hope that they get what is due, that's all nothing more and nothing less.
-
i am glad that you can blame the owners , unfortunatly it will be the dogs that suffer for the owners stupidty
The dogs in question are pit bull mix.
I don't blame the dogs, we don't know how these dogs are treated.
I blame the owner, as far as I am concerned, they have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control at all times and if they attack someone for what ever reason, they wear the consequences.
I agree with others, if my dog attacked someone, it would be put down without question. I would also be prepared to face what ever legal action was leveled at me because of it.
As I said earlier, I cannot for the life of me, understand how anyone could stand there and watch their dogs attacking someone and not raise a finger to help.
I just hope that they get what is due, that's all nothing more and nothing less.
-
Hi Graeme,
Sounds like a plan.
I wonder if the council where it happened has a policy in relation to how they manage dog attacks. If this happened today and they have already decided what the outcome is that is incredibly short period.
cheers
-
I have always been of the understanding of the law is that people need to be able to access your front door. If you are attacked between the front gate and the front door then the dog owners are in the you know what.
I am sick of irresponsible dog owners. We have an acreage property that is slowly getting surrounded by residential development. We often have domestic dogs chase and kill our chickens and geese. On a few occasions they round up and chase our horses. One killed the neighbours pet goats.
We used to catch them and tie them up and call the pound, now I just 'dispose' of them all. Might sound harsh, and yes it isn't the dogs fault, but owners need to take responsibility.
-
Hi Graeme,
Sounds like a plan.
I wonder if the council where it happened has a policy in relation to how they manage dog attacks. If this happened today and they have already decided what the outcome is that is incredibly short period.
cheers
It happened on Monday, the ranger that originally dealt with it is on leave, go figure. It only took them one day to decide on what action they were going to take. This is another concern.
There has been no mention from the ranger in regards to putting the dogs down, which in my opinion is a good thing.
Thanks again for the advice and ideas, I will let you know the outcome.
-
To start , I hope your daughter is ok. In the OP you say your ex is a full time carer who was picking up her client. Is her client physically or mentally impaired , or is she your daughters carer? You also said that it was the first time your ex picked up this client from this address. If the dogs weren't his and he is handicapped this might explain why he didn't / couldn't do anything about the dogs. There is no excuse for the dogs owner though , as long as he was home at the time. If they were my dogs the council wouldn't get a chance to put them down. My rule is one unprovoked bite , one bullet. >:D
-
Ok so, sorry to her your daughter got bitten, that really sucks.
But serious, you blame the owner? What the hell was your ex doing taking your daughter to work for? Then sending her to the front door of a house, she either
1) has never been too
Or
2) she new there may be part pit bull dogs residing in the yard?
Really only person to blame here is your ex, for putting your daughter in the situation to start with.
Hope your daughter gets better.
-
Apart from involving the ranger have you contacted the police.
-
GraemeL i am in Perth if you need a hand with anything PM me
-
To start , I hope your daughter is ok. In the OP you say your ex is a full time carer who was picking up her client. Is her client physically or mentally impaired , or is she your daughters carer? You also said that it was the first time your ex picked up this client from this address. If the dogs weren't his and he is handicapped this might explain why he didn't / couldn't do anything about the dogs. There is no excuse for the dogs owner though , as long as he was home at the time. If they were my dogs the council wouldn't get a chance to put them down. My rule is one unprovoked bite , one bullet. >:D
The client is a young female, and is mentally impaired, she is my daughters age and they are good friends.
The client does not live there, the owner of the property let the dogs out.
See my previous post about the client being at the property.
Ok so, sorry to her your daughter got bitten, that really sucks.
But serious, you blame the owner? What the hell was your ex doing taking your daughter to work for? Then sending her to the front door of a house, she either
1) has never been too
Or
2) she new there may be part pit bull dogs residing in the yard?
Really only person to blame here is your ex, for putting your daughter in the situation to start with.
Hope your daughter gets better.
Really??
Yes I blame the owner, even if the above was true, it doesn't excuse the actions of the owner regardless of the circumstances. The owner stood by and ALLOWED the UNPROVOKED attack to take place, they also allowed it to continue without any intervention on their part.
My daughter is very good friends with the client, this is why it was her that went to collect her. The ex was picking up the client with my daughter on the way to the recreation center. It is there that another carer takes over the care of my daughter and the activities for each are planned out for that day.
So to put it simply, the ex was on her way into work, with my daughter and because her client was along the way, she stopped off to pick up her client.
Apart from involving the ranger have you contacted the police.
No they were not, I wish they were.
GraemeL i am in Perth if you need a hand with anything PM me
Chester, that is very kind of you, I will PM you shortly with some info we can discuss if that's ok
-
Fair enough mate, the whole story helps, regardless, knowing that there was pit bulls on site no way in hell would I send my daughter in by herself.
Hope your daughter recovers mate.
-
Fair enough mate, the whole story helps, regardless, knowing that there was pit bulls on site no way in hell would I send my daughter in by herself.
Hope your daughter recovers mate.
No worries, we are all entitled to our opinions, whether others agree or not. There have been some very good points put forward in this discussion and I will be re thinking my actions as a result.
-
Graeme
Sorry to hear about this. Do what you think is correct. Unfortntley this is how it is nowdays. If it had been a far worse tradedy (and thank god it wasn't) the law would be involved and the dogs would be put down. Unfortunately they will be allowed to go on and do it again. Just like the parole given to criminals to allow them out to reoffend until tradedy strikes.
-
Graeme
Sorry to hear about this. Do what you think is correct. Unfortntley this is how it is nowdays. If it had been a far worse tradedy (and thank god it wasn't) the law would be involved and the dogs would be put down. Unfortunately they will be allowed to go on and do it again. Just like the parole given to criminals to allow them out to reoffend until tradedy strikes.
So true and well written :cup: :cup:
Nothing happens ...until something happens..
jet ;D ;D
-
That is what I said to the ranger, what if the dogs latched onto her throat instead of her leg and foot. I didn't get a reply.
As it turns out the owner is well known to the authorities, Kalgoorlie is a large but small town and the ex is worried there may be some retaliation if we push it.
So now I have to re think things and decide if it is worth the potential risk of putting the daughter and ex in a situation that could turn ugly.
But maybe that is why the rangers are not going with a prosecution, because they feel it would be a waste of time and effort.
The daughter has to have ex rays on her left ankle, as the swelling hasn't gone down and she is unable to walk on it as yet.
-
Mate good to hear the daughter is OK.
In NSW as I understand it the dog act only applies outside the house boundary. But if you enter someones property the owner has a general responsibility for you safety. (Note new laws have been passed recently)
I think you'll find the rangers are correct given the incident happened within the premisses.
My suggestion would be if you're so concerned go down the the local magistrate and take out a claim against the occupiers of the house . Assuming you are your daughters legal guardian.
You could go to the local legal aid office with your daughter and I'm sure they'd be interested.
The advantage of this is
You make the owners responsible by taking action against them not the dogs by using the ranges.
It forces the owners (house or dog owner) to court.
If you daughter has legal aid probably not cost to you and if you loose your daughter probably has no assets so all is good. Further in the local courts costs that can be awarded against you are relatively minimal.
Go the occupier of the house and or owner of the dogs.
Just read you post above you in WA.
Just go to the local legal aid or magistrate. Thanks what I'd do with ratbags like that. I know of a few cases where people are so called "known to authorities". Usually it's a bluff.
One thing which you should consider is what are you after? Getting the dogs put down compensation for daughter? The compensation may be a easier solution.
In any-event I hope you get it resolved
-
I have finally finished a letter that I will be sending off to the CEO.
I feel the conditions I have listed in the letter are very fair and achievable and is the best outcome for everyone, including the two dogs.
If the shire agrees to enforce them along with the infringements, it will not only teach the owner to be responsible in the future, it will also benefit the dogs in question, through obedience training.
Hopefully this will be enough.
-
I'm not a lawyer or dog control expert but, to me, the purpose of the visit and the issue of your EX 'working' is irrelevant.
To me, it doesn't matter - Chantelle could have kicked on the door to collect money for the Red Cross Red Shield Appeal, she could have been lost and asking for directions... does she need a "legitimate reason"? - at the end of the day, I think knocking on someone's door and getting attacked by their dog is unacceptable!
ps If it were my dog it would be getting put down immediately.
-
I Think a no win no fee Solicitor(Lawyer (F***EN Yanks.) would love this.
I'd seriously consider a "contributory negligence claim" against the 'statues' that didn't help your daughter too.
By clearly failing to do something reasonably expected, they've mad the situation worse.
Clearly fails as a good samaritan situation.
And yes there is a 'Common Law right' to approach the front door of premises for whatever reason.
If it had been the 'Law' at the front door, those dogs wouldn't have walked away.
-
Ok
Foget the emotional stuff.
Councils "enforce" regulations. If the owner of the dogs/house dispute it you will have to go to court to prove the council case in anyevent.
Just go to your local legal aid and take civil acton for compensation far more effective and you get some control. If you let council run the case it is someone just complaing about dogs. You're the bad guy.
If you feel so strongly "just do it".
-
Ok
Forget the emotional stuff.
Councils "enforce" regulations. If the owner of the dogs/house dispute it you will have to go to court to prove the council case in any event.
Just go to your local legal aid and take civil action for compensation far more effective and you get some control. If you let council run the case it is someone just complaining about dogs. You're the bad guy.
If you feel so strongly "just do it".
Exactly.
-
Ok
Foget the emotional stuff.
Councils "enforce" regulations. If the owner of the dogs/house dispute it you will have to go to court to prove the council case in anyevent.
Just go to your local legal aid and take civil acton for compensation far more effective and you get some control. If you let council run the case it is someone just complaing about dogs. You're the bad guy.
If you feel so strongly "just do it".
This is one of the reasons I am supportive of infringements in this area (UNLESS: the attack was a serious one requiring surgery). The simple fact is that the infringement will 99 times out of 100 end in a higher fine than the court will give.
The fines are usually pretty good and for the owner to contest them they need to pay their legal costs which are substantial. If the rangers have sufficient evidence for the court to accept a prima facie case exists (that is that a reasonable person would consider their to be sufficient enough of a case to take to court) then even if they lose costs are not normally awarded against council. So the owner gets off but still pays in legal costs.
But generally, the fine is paid as they cant afford the legal costs.
Also, declaring dogs to be dangerous under most state laws now is much easier and they must stay in an enclosure so there is no need for them to be put down.
Hope it all goes well!
cheers
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yeah get onto A current affair but make sure you mention that you think there was a truck driver there too! Seems ACA hate us truckies it should get them there quick!
-
This is one of the reasons I am supportive of infringements in this area (UNLESS: the attack was a serious one requiring surgery). The simple fact is that the infringement will 99 times out of 100 end in a higher fine than the court will give.
The fines are usually pretty good and for the owner to contest them they need to pay their legal costs which are substantial. If the rangers have sufficient evidence for the court to accept a prima facie case exists (that is that a reasonable person would consider their to be sufficient enough of a case to take to court) then even if they lose costs are not normally awarded against council. So the owner gets off but still pays in legal costs.
But generally, the fine is paid as they cant afford the legal costs.
Also, declaring dogs to be dangerous under most state laws now is much easier and they must stay in an enclosure so there is no need for them to be put down.
Hope it all goes well!
cheers
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sorry but an injured person now suffering frpm a phobia about dog etc etch the court compensation is far likely to be higher.
-
Hi Scott. How many times have you taken these matters to court? I did this for a iving. Classic example. Blue heeler bite to leg of 63 yo walking down the street. Hospital for four weeks, skin grafts, a year to walk without a cane. $600. Fine was $650.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Thanks for the support, my daughter i recovering slowly. X-rays on her ankle don't show any broken bones, but she still has to have an ultrasound.
She is getting around ok but still has some pain in her foot and ankle. we are hoping it is just sever bruising.
I would like to get one thing clear, it is not about MONEY and I have no intentions of seeking legal advice, or seeking any form of monetary compensation.
We will leave that to the Americans :D
I have discussed things with several people, including rangers, members here as well as a lawyer. After taking everything into consideration I am happy with the infringements along with some conditions that I am hopeful the shire will enforce.
These conditions are...
The owner agrees in writing to attend an obedience training course with the two dogs.
The owner must satisfactorily complete such a course.
The Shire decides the appropriate obedience course.
The shire is to monitor the behavior and well being of the two dogs for a period of not less than 6 months.
If the owner fails to agree to these conditions or fails to complete the obedience course, the dogs are to be removed from their control and re-homed with someone that is prepared to train them.
The shire will move to have the matter heard before a magistrate.
We feel this would be the best outcome for all involved, it allows the dogs owner the option, accept the conditions or it goes to court.
It will show the owner that they do have a responsibility and that they are required under the law to keep control of any animal in their care.
It will also prove to be the best option for the two dogs, they will be better trained and better behaved, so hopefully regardless of what happens in the future, they won't act aggressively.
-
Hi Scott. How many times have you taken these matters to court? I did this for a iving. Classic example. Blue heeler bite to leg of 63 yo walking down the street. Hospital for four weeks, skin grafts, a year to walk without a cane. $600. Fine was $650.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Dazzlieer agree fines are minimal hence take civil action. If you are saying $600 was the compensation awarded well must be a Tas thing in NSW hospitalised for 4 weeks would be a lot more
Moving on looks like a solution has been found
-
Maybe. The issue with courts is that the bad guy gets to tell a story before the mag makes their decision. They BS and carry on and blah blah they get a pittance of the fine. There is also another issue. Rangers are not cops and most couldnt take a statement to save themselves. Not their fault but the lack of training they get. They are also very inexperienced in court and poor witnesses. So the chances of losing in court is high. I know they are generalisations however that is my experience in a number of places. Anyway, best of luck. Cheers
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Hi Graeme,
Glad your daughter is on the way to recovery.
I own a dog that tries to lick bones back to life, but it would still not leave him unattended with a child. As you said dogs can be unpredictable so why take the chance.
I hope the council agrees to your sensible conditions however they probably would complain that they do not have the resources to monitor them properly (which they probably don't).
Good luck and hopefully your daughter recovers quickly (both physically and emotionally) dogs can be wonderful friends.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD